Discussion in 'Windows 10' started by moderate, Nov 11, 2014.
Do we really need new OS each year?
fail... 98SE missing ME missing 8.1 missing... FAIL MAN
lol do bee doo beedoooo
Missing from your list is OSR2, which was really good and introduced USB, 98SE wasn't a failure.
Do we NEED it? No, of course not.
But does it accelerate innovation and fit into an update cycle that is becoming ever more prevalent in the industry? Yes.
No only Apple can do that and get away with it.
Linux you don't count as a person lmao
AS Apple didn't really like the downward compatibility and focus in line on the selling of it's MEW product's for to make a much money as possible, they NEED a new OS in fastest possible means!
Me think that MS is started that same way to get more attention to it's Surface Program (not to forget the now by MS owned Nokia!) and to boost the selling of that hardware, so they took Apple as example for it's mobile programs. The question is: Will that works the way as it does for Apple? Hopefully yes, just doubt about it!
we need new build every week
Windows 7 does everything I need and more, tried windows 8.1 and found it just confused me and made we work slower. W10, doubt if it will be any different
If you like windows 8.x you will like windows 10.
It's crazy to put out this stuff faster and faster, and I wonder where the limit will be to the constant update greed. Once a year, third a year, quarter a year, every month, twice a month...? Do we need that? Well, ask the people who are still on XP these days.
In short: No
Win7 might be slower overall than win8 on newer hardware, but it runs programs just as efficiently, if not more so.
They keep trying to push their store on us and nobody who uses real software wants it.
MS if you're reading this:
You're terrible at creating demand. If you want people to buy something, you have to generate hype for it.
I have yet to see an advertisement for the Windows Store or any of the apps anywhere on the internet.
Nonsense we are merely watching the Call of Dutification of Windows. I see absolutely no way how this can go wrong.
WinXP shipped in late '01 (I bought it then), and Vista didn't ship until early 2007--close to a six-year gap there. Win7 shipped two years after Vista (in 2009.) Windows 8.0 was generally available for purchase in late 2012, and that's a gap of three years post Win7. Windows 8.1 was released a year after 8.0 became generally available, but let's face it--8.1 is to 8.0 what a service pack was to Win7 and earlier Microsoft OSes and versions... Microsoft for some unearthly reason tries to foist the joke that 8.1 is a "brand-new", completely separate OS from 8.0; but of course that is ludicrous. As I've said before, had 8.1 actually been a wholly different OS then it surely would have been "Win 9" as opposed to Win8.1. Why Microsoft suddenly decided that the tried & true service pack nomenclature was no longer workable in Win8 and newer, and that service packs should henceforth be labeled .1 version update releases is completely beyond me...!
So, not only do we not need a "new OS" every year, Microsoft sure isn't putting one out every year to begin with... In case you might be confusing the customer "preview" betas Microsoft has released, well, they don't count at all since they aren't the finalized versions and are not available for purchase by *anybody*...
But I take your general point and agree! Too little time between OS releases has a potential of winding up a disaster. I thought the ~6 years between XP and Vista was just about right on the money. Haste makes waste, as Microsoft should have learned in spades with the Win8.0 release--artificially pumping out OSes like crops are harvested each fall is probably the most brain-dead scheduling idea I've seen come out of Microsoft in a long time. AN OS worth buying should be shipped "when it's time" and not a day earlier, imo. Rapid releases have as much chance of hurting Microsoft as they do of helping the company--really, I'd say the deck is stacked against Microsoft (or any OS OEM) in the event of artificially hurried OS releases. Seems like that would be a matter of simple common sense within Microsoft...
Lets go all the way with the versions:
Windows 1.01 - November 1985
Windows 1.02 - May 1986
Windows 1.03 - August 1986
Windows 1.04 - April 1987
Windows 2.0 - December 1987
Windows 2.10 - May 1988
Windows 2.11 - March 1989
Windows 3.0 - May 1990
Windows 3.1 - April 1992
Windows NT 3.1 - July 1993
Windows 3.2 - November 1993
Windows NT 3.5 - September 1994
Windows NT 3.51 - May 1995
Windows 95 - August 1995
Windows NT 4.0 - August 1996
Windows 98 - June 1998
Windows 98 SE - May 1999
Windows 2000 - February 2000
Windows ME - September 2000
Windows XP - October 2001
Windows Vista - January 2007
Windows 7 - October 2009
Windows 8 - October 2012
Windows 8.1 - October 2013
Windows 10 - 2015
Total Operating Systems: 25
Sinful Operating Systems:
Windows ME - Doesn't deserve to be called an OS.
Windows Vista - Still better than Windows 8
Windows 8 - how do you turn it off?
Windows 8.1 - Aha I found out how to turn it off!
Windows 98 SE
you must not have messed with 2k and NT's they kicked ass.
What is a new OS?!
This does not apply to M$ yet. It's lack of choice due to monopoly, the only thing they have to do is to wait and to slow down older products which is the main purpose of windows update.
I patiently wait for the day when the calculation doesn't work out anymore.